International journal of colorectal disease · 2017
Comparison of the clinical results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tsukamoto Shunsuke, Kanemitsu Yukihide, Shida Dai, Ochiai Hiroki, Mazaki Junichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the oncologic results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR).
METHODS: Between 2003 and 2014, 277 consecutive patients with stage I-III low rectal cancer located within 5 cm from the anal verge underwent curative ISR and APR. A retrospective comparison of these two procedures was performed.
RESULTS: Overall, 128 patients underwent ISR and 149 underwent APR. The ISR group had earlier clinical stages and shorter distal margins (p < 0.01). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 84.7/74.7% with T1-2 tumors and 51.3/67.6% with T3-4 tumors. In T3-4 tumors, the rate of local recurrence was higher in the ISR group (13.2%) than in the APR group (3.8%). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 89.7/92.3% for stage I cases, 84.4/87.5% for stage II cases, and 39.8/51.8% for stage III cases. Patients with stage III tumors had high rates of distant recurrence in both groups (24.3 vs. 26.3%).
CONCLUSION: ISR is a feasible surgical procedure for T1-2 tumors. Patients with stage III tumors should be considered for adjuvant therapy to control distant recurrence regardless of the surgical procedure.
METHODS: Between 2003 and 2014, 277 consecutive patients with stage I-III low rectal cancer located within 5 cm from the anal verge underwent curative ISR and APR. A retrospective comparison of these two procedures was performed.
RESULTS: Overall, 128 patients underwent ISR and 149 underwent APR. The ISR group had earlier clinical stages and shorter distal margins (p < 0.01). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 84.7/74.7% with T1-2 tumors and 51.3/67.6% with T3-4 tumors. In T3-4 tumors, the rate of local recurrence was higher in the ISR group (13.2%) than in the APR group (3.8%). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 89.7/92.3% for stage I cases, 84.4/87.5% for stage II cases, and 39.8/51.8% for stage III cases. Patients with stage III tumors had high rates of distant recurrence in both groups (24.3 vs. 26.3%).
CONCLUSION: ISR is a feasible surgical procedure for T1-2 tumors. Patients with stage III tumors should be considered for adjuvant therapy to control distant recurrence regardless of the surgical procedure.